Jump to ratings and reviews
Rate this book

Dick Crossman: A Portrait

Rate this book
Hardcover with unclipped dust jacket in very good condition. Light shelf wear to the jacket, including ink marks to the front and rear. Page block is lightly discoloured. Plates, pages and text are clear and unmarked throughout. LW

253 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1989

About the author

Tam Dalyell

23 books1 follower
Sir Thomas Dalyell, 11th Baronet, FRSGS, known as Tam Dalyell, was a Scottish Labour Party politician who was a member of the House of Commons from 1962 to 2005. He represented West Lothian from 1962 to 1983, then Linlithgow from 1983 to 2005. He is particularly well known for his formulation of what came to be known as the "West Lothian question", on whether non-English MPs should be able to vote upon English-only matters after political devolution. He was also known for his anti-war, anti-imperialist views, opposing the Falklands War, the Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan and the Iraq War.

Ratings & Reviews

What do you think?
Rate this book

Friends & Following

Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!

Community Reviews

5 stars
1 (33%)
4 stars
1 (33%)
3 stars
1 (33%)
2 stars
0 (0%)
1 star
0 (0%)
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Profile Image for Jim Bowen.
1,112 reviews10 followers
March 5, 2026
This book is about Richard, “Dick” Crossman, an intellectual left wing Labour politician who held a number of Cabinet positions in Harold Wilson’s 1960s government. He is perhaps more famous now for being the one whose diaries kickstarted the caustic political diary, when it looked like they were dying out?

Tam Dalyell knew Crossman well, working with him, and renting from him, while Crossman was still alive. You get a warts-and-all description of this “ideas politician” here (as opposed to a people/management politician). He was clearly intelligent, and got a lot done, but he can come off as impatient, a bit of a bully, and someone who… can’t suffer fools gladly here? This is good, because we get a rounded view.

The problem is that it was written in the late 1980s now, so can feel a little dated now, talking about things that happened a long, long time ago?
Displaying 1 of 1 review